Document dQ0e8gn3jDxYVXdLk9baz68qR

PHOTODEGRADATION (SOIL) TEST SUBSTANCE Identity:N-ethylperfluorooctanseulfonamidoethanolm;ay alsobe referredto as N-ETFOSE Alcoholor FM-3422. (1-Octanesulfonamide,N-ethyl1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluoro-N-(2-hydroxyethyl@, CAS # 1691-99-2) Remarks: Materialisan off-whitew,axy solidof uncharacterizepdurity. The followingsummaty isabbreviateddue to the factthata new study is pending. METHOD Method/guidelinefollowed: Procedure developed by 3M tostudythe photolysisof N-ETFOSE alcoholsorbed tosoil. -Type (testtype): Sunlightexposure GLP (Y/N): No Year: 1979 LightSource:Minnesotasunlighats itpassesthroughan east-faciwnigndowin the 3M Environment Laboratoryfrom February26 toOctober 18,1979. Light Spectrum (nm): Not recorded Intensity:Not recorded Spectrum of substance (max lambda, max epsilon and epsilon 295):Not determined. Remarks field: .Test medium (air,water,soil,other -specify):Soil - Duration:233 days -PositiveControls: None -Negative Controls: None -Blank Controls: One RESULTS Concentration of Substance: One gram N-ETFOSE alcoholon 20 grams ofsoil Temperature OC: Not recorded Degradation %: Not quantified CONCLUSIONS No reliablceonclusionscan be derivedfrom thisstudy. Submitter: 3M Company, EnvironmentalLaboratory,P.O. Box 33331, St.Paul, Minnesota, 55133 DATA QUALITY ReliabilityK:limischranking3. Study isinvalidatebdy a lackof proper methodology and recordkeeping.Test substance puritywas notpropedy charactedzed. REFERENCES 3M TechnicalReport "Photolysiosf FM 3422 on Soil."James E Gagnon and ArthurMendel, Fateof Fluorochemicals,Project9770612600, Report Number 015, December 10, 1979 Review ofTechnicalReport Summary. Photolysiosf FM 3422 on Soil.Professor Stephen A. Boyd, Michigan StateUniversityM,ay 19,1993. OTHER Last changed: 5/18/00 Attachedarecomments on the3M TechnicalReport "PhotolysiosfFM-3422 on Soil.J.Gagnon and A- Mendel,Project9970612600, ReportNo. 15,Dec. 10,1979" made by ProfessorStephen A. Boyd, MichiganStateUniversityd,atedMay 19,1993. Review of TechnicalReport Summary Photolysisof FM 3422 on SoU The reportlacksany descriptioonf theexperiments.The Materialsand Methods sectionis missing.Tle factthatFM 3422 isvirtuallaybsentinthecontrolsoilisworrisome. Of course, an exactdescriptioonf the controlisn'tgiven,but I assume itisthe same coatedsoilnot exposed to sunlight.At any ratethe controllooksinvalidw,hich essentialliynvalidatetshe whole study.Ile studyshouldbe re-designeidn consultatiownitha photochemistand repeated. Form 67-47-I1-A TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY TO: TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS CENTER - 201-2CN (importa-ntIfr4opoirsptrinteadn boM sideosfpqw, =7d tm copintoTCC.) Division -Environmental Laboratory Project Fate of Fluorochemicals Repo" Ti"e (EE & PC) Photolysis of FM 3422 on Soil Iro Dale L. Bacon AuthW(IO "ZOPW- IAN&I% James E. Gagn*, Arthur Mendel NOtoboe* Reference 51567, SECURITY 10- 52692 0 Open fcompany Confidential) Closed (Sp@cW Authorization) VA CHEIMICAL REGISTRY KEYWORDS: I$Wstcetrnfsrom3M Thowrta. Suggw other moksmewnu.I Env. Lab FM-3422Photolysis CURRENT OBJECTIVE: Determine if FM 3422 (FM 3923)-coated degrade in sunlight. [ODee. 10, 1979 OWIL Numbw 0535 rraisetnumbw 9970612600 Repo" Number 015 FMWIOY" Numb*dsl 213531, 043939 No. of Paw Including Coversho4vt Now ChemicalsReported 0 Yo 13 t4o onto Soil would REPORT ABSTRACT: (2DO-25w0ords)Thisdwova informatiiosncrtstribubtyetdheTechnicaclomnwniestioncsenterto alert 3M'ors to Company R&D. It is Company confidential imtwial. Soil coated with FM 3422 and control soil were exposed . to sunlight for 7 1/2 months. Methanol extrar-ts of the respective soils were then analyzed by gas chr7'0'matography. cc: D. Ricker A. N. Welter nformation Iinitiols: Liaison c, 1(-b ) Introduction The complex of FM 3422 with sly@ge and the photolysis of FM 3422 in water were reported earlier . It was of interest to study the fate of FM 8422 deposited on soil and then exposed to sunlight since photolysis,if anyunder these conditions may differ from aqueous photolysis. Results and Discussion A soil sample coated with FM 3422 and a control soil sample were exposed to Minnesota suniight from 26 Februar to IS October 1979 and then-extracted with meyhanol. The respective extracts were analyzed by electron capture gas chromatography (Figures 1 - 4) for possible photolysis products. Three unknown peaks showed up in the FM 3422 soil sample (Table 1) which were not present in the soil control. Owing to the small amount of products present no attempt was made to isolate and identify these compounds. The peak at TR = 2.13 minutes (Table 1) in the control sample was absent from the coated.sample and is therefore unlikely to be a photolysis product or a sample preparation artifact. Again because of its low concentration no attempt at identification was undertaken. FM 3422 was also detected in the control sample. The amount detected was much less than in the FM 3422 coated soil. This could have been caused by cross contamination: 1) during sample preparation 2) from sublimation of FM 3422 from soil 3) during extraction step. TABLE I G.C. of Methanol Extracts of FM 3422 from soil 2.13 2.44 T R (Min) 4.38 5.14 8.43 9.87 Methanol Blank Control FM 3422 Soil Extract FM 3422 Standard ND ND ND ND ND ND 6.1** ND ND 93.9 ND ND ND 2.3 3.5 93.5 0.4 0.3 ND ND 6.8 93.2 ND ND Average retention time ND = Not detected = Results are reported as relative area percent per sample. This assumes the same response factor for each component. Future Work In the future, a scale-up of this experiment should confirm the presence of the unknowns and allow sufficient quantities of samples for subsequent identification. p 3"-Z8 IEAI LY m .0 STOP ATTN 30 64 REJECT 100 $&VIA J---IE4 4 4 -7 @i 8. 43 9. 87 21 STOP BTL F.T 4. 4 4 TYPE TM TM m m FiREFi 1 85 2 @-7148.45 5450.6-@-@'9 @.:@'64 9 4 !E,700 RREA 4 A- 780 8 1'-:@6 88 144 4 C-197 69 L@ T L. V:..@m -'@O FIT N 64 REJECT 100 s-ig3P 00 STOP ATTN 30 64 O.i T E i EC T 100 5. 1 d'o Wow- 0, 4n Am -,Abu. dw .#pop 0 4lowe '7T ClP cI y F4. s@op 9T N E.4 r--jt-LCT 00 0 Fi iL@ T STOP 30 ATTN 64 RE J E CT* 100 b OX C42 42 Ob 21. 67 STOP 8T L 2 PT 4. 4 -c-@' 5. -i6. 21.67 TYPE T TM TM AREA ;e. AREA 70.342 967Z-('O 12498157 .519 7 7. 149 9 2. 3 HP L Y 2. STOP FiT T N 4 REJECT ioe T F HP ,71 STOP 30 REJECT 100 ATTN 64 a it 5. 0 20. 78 S T riFl 7 4 T YPE FiREFi 8f-49498 FiPEfl % ioo. 0 0 TE ioo ci N i-:4 f-iT-- 2. 44 44 2 Every attempt should be made to eliminate possible cross contamination, such as preparing and analyzing the controls first. An attempt should also be made to physically separate the control and sample during photolysis to eliminate the chance- of cross contamination by sublimation, volatilization/ adsorption or other means. Experimental 1. Sample Materials Soil - 250p sieved greenhouse soil FM 3422 FM 3422 is N-ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamide-N-ethylalcohol: Lot E-788 CG-745-2 Chemicals Division before use. c 8F 17 so 2 N-C 2H 4 OH 2n 5 received from D Risker of 3M's Commercial was sublimed at 60 C and 0.1 mm Hg Methanol - "Lichrosolv" Manufacturing Chemists, OH 45212. grade available from MC/B 2909 Highland Avenue, Norwood, 2. Analysis Instruments/Materials Extraction Thimbles: Gas Chromatograph: Cellulose double thickness available from Curtin Scientific Chromatograph - Hewlett-Packard Model 5713 GC. Integrator - Hewlett-Packard Model 3380,k integrator- printer. Both of the above available from Hewlett-Packard Co., 150 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Column - Six-foot, 1/8 inch OD, stainless steel, packed with 10% CW20M on 60/80 Chromasorb W-AW. Column Temperature - 1700-220 0 at 40 C/min. 8 minute post inject@on interval and upper limit hold Injector - On-column at 200 C. Detector - Electron Capture at 300 0 C. Flow - ^,40 cc/minute of Argon:Methane (95/5). 3 3. Procedure Sample Preparation The control plate was prepared by thoroughly shaking 20 grams of soil with 20 mL of methanol. This slurry was evenly spread to a thickness of approximately 0.5 mm with a glass rod onto a precleaned glass plate. The FM 3422 slurry was prepared by dissolving one gram of FM 3422 in 20 mL of methanol and shaking with 20 grams of soil. This slurry was applied to a glass plate as described above and both were air dried. Both plates were placed in an east facing window of the environmental laboratory (no maumade obstruction to sunlight) on 26 February, 1979. The plates were separated from each other by a distance of about 30 em. Sample Extraction All extraction thimbles and silanized glass wool were Boxhlet extracted for 7 hours and stored in methanol rinsed aluminum foil until used. The samples were removed from the window on 17 October, 1979 (233 days of exposure). Each sample was completely scrapped off the glass plate, placed-in separate. extraction thimbles, and Soxhlet extracted (methanol) for 7 hours (1 cycle per 15 minutes). The respective extracts were then concentrated to 1.5 mL in a Kuderna-Danish (K-D) evaporater using steam heat. The control sample was a dark yellow (some of the soil had been transferred from the Soxhlet) while the FM 3422 sample was a light yellow. Sample Analysis Approximately 0.1 mL of each sample was diluted to 100 mL with methanol. A 10 ppm standard, the control and sample (1 uL each) were injected onto the gas chromatograph. Two 1 UL injections of a methanol blank were injected between each run. References 1) A. Mendel, 3M Technical Report Summary, 30 August 1978 to R. L. Bohon, "Fate of Fluorochemicals Project - Progress Report." 2) Report in progress by J. W. Todd of Agricultural Chemicals.